Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

yangxiao.cs.ua.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#61

Post by XorNot »

harimau777 wrote: post #42
next_xibalba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read about the history of communism. Until you do, you have no idea how utterly horrible life can get.

I'm not sure that's really relevant. If capitalism fails to allow people to live worthwhile lives, then I don't think it helps much to say some other system is worse. That doesn't change the fact that capitalism is a failed system.

Exactly: when people are unhappy and decide they're going to remove the heads of the ruling class, "but is worse!" is some gallows humor while they do it.

Which has historical precedent: the French revolution wasn't a well planned transition to a better system, the Russian revolutionaries overthrowing the Tsar weren't much interested in the specific details of communism.

If the defense you have for the suffering of people is "well it could be worse" you are rather gambling that they are not yet sufficiently unhappy that the effort to be rid of you won't seem worth it.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#62

Post by graycat »

linguae wrote: post #16
nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

I think it could be better titled "Don't Become an Academic Professional or Professional Scientist." They have good reasons for this. Whereas, you can do science as a hobby in your spare time for free or up to your chosen budget. You can publish whatever you want on your web sites, social media, etc. You can often get advice or peer review from professional scientists by asking them. You might pay them for their time…

I came to a similar conclusion as a computer scientist working in industry who ended up transitioning to a community college teaching career. I remember being inspired by the stories of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC as a high school student and undergrad, wanting to follow in the footsteps of researchers like Dennis Ritchie. However, the industrial research landscape has changed in the past 15 years. It's very difficult t…

Bell Labs was part of AT&T which had in effect a government approved monopoly -- nearly all of the US telephone system, so was awash in earnings for transistors, lasers, information theory, the Fast Fourier Transform, etc. Xerox PARC was part of Xerox that was also "awash in earnings" from photocopying machines and for more whatever else, e.g., more in personal computing.

So, for a high school student, the lesson there was not just to do great science but to join or start a business that is or soon can be "awash in money" and then do whatever you want, e.g., Jim and Marilyn Simons, including "great science".

In more detail, now in practice, one of the main motivations of a company "awash in money" is to pursue research for luster, e.g., AI, quantum computing.

Ah, Lesson 101 in US life and money!

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#63

Post by MarioMan »

Those interested in the article may also enjoy reading this one, which really helps to sober your perspective on why one would even go for a CS PhD:

“So long, and thanks for the Ph.D.!” a.k.a. “Everything I wanted to know about C.S. graduate school at the beginning but didn’t learn until later.”

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/hitch4.html

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#64

Post by jakobnissen »

I'm a research scientist, and I think it's fine. Though it may vary with your country and time.

During my PhD, we learned that about 1 in 10 PhDs got a permanent academic position. That's intentional - the industry wants way more PhDs than the university. If we only trained future professors, we'd train many fewer.

But PhDs have low unemployment, even in subjects like history and philosophy, and the jobs they get in industry are usually good. So getting a PhD is not exactly the career suicide that people paint it as.

The author is right about the whole grant game though. Fuck that.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#65

Post by zdragnar »

somenameforme wrote: post #56
neftaly wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thomas Jefferson said that a bunch

You need to keep in mind context. He lived in a time when the overwhelming majority of society was self employed and there was no formalized, let alone compulsory, educational system whatsoever. Looking up the exact history there, the first compulsory education began in 1852 (Jefferson died in 1826 at the age of 83), where children 8 to 14 were required to spend at least 3 months a year in 'schooling', with at least…

Even into the 1950's and early 60's, my dad went to a one-room school, probably until he was around 14 years old. No running water or air conditioning, the job of the first student to arrive in colder months was to start a fire in the stove to heat up the room.

Had he been born a few years earlier, it would have been unlikely for him to even graduate. 1940 was the first year that the graduation rate hit 50%.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#66

Post by lisper »

neftaly wrote: post #46
lisper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few people say that. Overwhelmingly the rhetoric one hears is that the purpose of higher education is to get a better job. Personally, I think it would be great if we educated people to cultivate an engaged citizenry. But if we're going to do that we have to be up-front about it an work on an economic model that supports it. So, for example, you can't have student loans that are predicated on being able to obtai…

Thomas Jefferson said that a bunch

Thomas Jefferson was one person, and he died over 200 years ago.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#67

Post by kergonath »

lisper wrote: post #31
tehjoker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some would say you educate people to cultivate an engaged citizenry

Very few people say that. Overwhelmingly the rhetoric one hears is that the purpose of higher education is to get a better job. Personally, I think it would be great if we educated people to cultivate an engaged citizenry. But if we're going to do that we have to be up-front about it an work on an economic model that supports it. So, for example, you can't have student loans that are predicated on being able to obtai…

> Very few people say that.

It’s not very fashionable on HN because of the faux-tough utilitarian outlook, sure. I’m the real life, there might be such a thing as over-education, but the US are certainly not there.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#68

Post by kergonath »

jakobnissen wrote: post #64

I'm a research scientist, and I think it's fine. Though it may vary with your country and time. During my PhD, we learned that about 1 in 10 PhDs got a permanent academic position. That's intentional - the industry wants way more PhDs than the university. If we only trained future professors, we'd train many fewer. But PhDs have low unemployment, even in subjects like history and philosophy, and the jobs they get in…

> So getting a PhD is not exactly the career suicide that people paint it as.

Even when it is not career suicide, it usually is a pay cut in real terms compared to getting a job at a company earlier and accumulating experience on the job.

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#69

Post by megamix »

Would be interesting to read something about engineering degrees too. Are some degrees less worth pursuing? Is it sensible to spend 5 years if you're gonna become a PPT wizard ( sure good pay probably).

Re: Don't Become a Scientist (1999)

#70

Post by prerok »

jakobnissen wrote: post #64

I'm a research scientist, and I think it's fine. Though it may vary with your country and time. During my PhD, we learned that about 1 in 10 PhDs got a permanent academic position. That's intentional - the industry wants way more PhDs than the university. If we only trained future professors, we'd train many fewer. But PhDs have low unemployment, even in subjects like history and philosophy, and the jobs they get in…

Industries that want PhDs are quite limited IME. Very few companies are running their own research labs. I guess pharma would but in CS? Not one company in my country.

I also don't remember seeing PhD requirement/advantage in who's hiring on HN. There may be, but they are for sure rare.

In my country, in some job positions, a company is also required to give higher salaries to PhDs, so they reject such candidates because of overqualification. I know of a few cases where people actually officially removed their PhD from their education list.

YMMV, and I am glad it's working out for you but, at least in my country, the reality is very different.

Post reply on HN